Jai Prakash Singhal v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1980 DIGILAW 1036 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, dated June 30, 1970, decreeing the plaintiff's suit partly for Rs. 10425.50 together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 2. The facts briefly stated are these. Through a notification made under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, land of Kaulagarh Tea Estate belonging to Late Maharaja Rajendra Prakash and some land belonging to others, was notified for acquisition for the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. It was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were taken for determination of compensation. On March 23, 1963, the Land Acquisition Officer gave his award declaring compensation payable to Maharaja Rajendra Prakash and others. Maharaja Rajendra Prakash, thereafter, made the application under Section 18 of the Act on 3rd May. 1963. The claim was that compensation of the land determined was inadequate. It, however, appears that soon after the giving of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer on 3rd May, 1963, plan for which the land was intended to be acquired was revised. As a result of the revised plan, area of acquisition was reduced from 239.16 acres to 125.51 acres. Out of this area, 111 acres of land belonged to Maharaja Rajendra Prakash. As a result of reduction of area, compensation for the land was reduced to Rs. 21,19,385.95. This figure had been arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with the same rate which had been earlier fixed by him on 23rd March, 1963. The Mahraja challenged the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, whereupon the reference was made by the Collector Dehradun for determination of the compensation in respect of the land of the Maharaja. The said reference was numbered as reference No. 69 of 1963. Through a letter dated March 16,1974, the Collector, Dehradun was instructed by the Law Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh to contest the reference. The Civil Judge, Dehradun decided the reference on 25th of November, 1965. The said reference was numbered as reference No. 69 of 1963. Through a letter dated March 16,1974, the Collector, Dehradun was instructed by the Law Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh to contest the reference. The Civil Judge, Dehradun decided the reference on 25th of November, 1965. In the judgment, the Civil Judge noted that the area acquired by the Director, Oil and Natural Gas Commission for construction of Office building, laboratory, work shop and residential colony, was 1251 (or 125.51?) acres, out of which 111.969 acres, belonged to Maharaja Rajendra Prakash and the remaining to others. The Civil Judge modified the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced the compensation partly. After the submission of the reference, the plaintiff submitted a bill claiming Rs. 23,736/- as his fee from the State Government. The relevant portion of the bill submitted by the plaintiff to the State Government is noted below:- PAYABLE AT THE DEHRADUN DISTRICT TREASURY Detailed bill of fees for conducting land acquisition cases Month .......................... Voucher No. ................ of the ........................... list of payment or ..... ..................19 HEAD OF SERVICE Draw Nome of case Result of case Amount of compensation claimed by the Applicants Amount of compensation awarded by Collector Amount on which fee Claimed Amount of fees 26-11-65 Civil Judge Court, Dehara Dun L.A. No. H.H. Maharani Madal Shah & other v. Collector, D. Dun. Partly decreed and Partly dismissed 7792160.75 1782300.55 6009860/- 23736/- 3. The State Government did not agree to the payment of amount claimed by the plaintiff as fee. Their case was that the plaintiff had magnified his claim to the figure of Rs. 23736/- which was illegal. Thereafter the plaintiff served the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal for recovery of Rs. 25,754.56 (Rs. 23736/- the fee in the reference, Rs. 2010.56 interest from 15-6-1968 to 31-1-1969 and Rs. 8/- cost of the notice under Section 80) together with pendents lite and future interest at the rate of Re. 1/- per month. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff's claim for the amount mentioned above was refuted. The defendants pleaded that the payment of fee to the Government counsel is payable in accordance with the rules contained in the L.R. Manual. 1/- per month. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff's claim for the amount mentioned above was refuted. The defendants pleaded that the payment of fee to the Government counsel is payable in accordance with the rules contained in the L.R. Manual. It was asserted that the bill submitted by the plaintiff on 9-3-1976 was returned to him for correction and as the plaintiff did not correct the bill and submitted the same to the State of U.P., the plaintiff's grievance of non-payment was unjustified. The defendants asserted that the claim of Late Maharaja Rajendra Prakash for compensation amounting to Rupees 77,92,160.75 p. stood reduced to Rupees 35,76,397.05, the details of which were given in para 14 of the written statement, out of which amount Rs. 17,82,300.55 P. had already been paid to the Maharaja. Hence, the disputed amount in the reference was Rs. 17,94,096.50 P. on which amount counsel's fee came to Rupees 7929.50 P. and the plaintiff had unreasonably magnified the fee to Rs. 23736/-. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following five issues were framed by the trial court out of these five issues, the relevant issues are :- 1. Whether reference had been with respect to entire claim amounting to Rs. 992421.50? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the reference was confined to an area of only 111.969 acres? If so, its effect? 6. These two issues were taken up together by the trial court. It found that by the time the reference under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Officer was made to the District Judge, the award had been revised by the Collector. On account of the reduction of area acquired, the claim of Maharaja Rajendra Prakash was confined to the area subsequently reduced. The compensation claimed by him in respect of that area was much less. The same was as under: For Land . Rs. 29,74,456.43 For Trees . Rs. 4,513.68 For the bushes. Rs. 42,777.75 Total Rs. 30,21,747.91 7. The learned Judge found that over and above the amount, Maharaja Rajendra Prakash was also entitled to 15 per cent solatium which amounted to Rupees 453262.18 P. The total amount of compensation which was the subject matter of reference was Rs. 34,750.09 P. (sic) Out of the above amount the Land Acquisition Officer had given award of Rupees 17,82,300.55P. The learned Judge found that over and above the amount, Maharaja Rajendra Prakash was also entitled to 15 per cent solatium which amounted to Rupees 453262.18 P. The total amount of compensation which was the subject matter of reference was Rs. 34,750.09 P. (sic) Out of the above amount the Land Acquisition Officer had given award of Rupees 17,82,300.55P. The amount in dispute in the reference after deducting the same from Rs. 34,750.09 (sic) came to Rupees 16,92,710.54. On this amount the counsel's fee payable under Rule 586 of the General Rules (Civil) came to Rs. 7546.41P. Apart from the above amount, the learned Civil Judge further held that as Maharaja Rajendra Prakash had given up some claim made by him in the reference application counsel's fee on the above amount at half the rate prescribed under Rule 585 was Rs. 2502.55. The total amount of counsel's fee was Rupees 10,048.96P. Having found that the above amount was due to the plaintiff the trial court granted a decree for the said sum. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal. 8. The argument advanced before me was that the plaintiff was entitled to his legal fee on the amount of claim preferred by the Maharaja Rajendra Prakash in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the mere fact that possession was taken of the entire area acquired after the filing of the reference, could not affect the taxability of the appellant's fee. In connection with this argument, the submission made further was that the subsequent alleged variation in the area of land did not affect the reducing of the claim. 9. For determining the fee payable in contested cases, provision made in the General Rules (Civil) has to be found in para 585. The Proviso to the above para which is relevant for our purpose reads as under:- "Provided that in a reference to Civil Court under Land Acquisition Act, (The U.P., Rampur Thekedari and Pattedari Abolition Act, 1953) fee shall be calculated on the amount in dispute, i.e., on the difference between the amount allowed by the Collector and the amount claimed by the applicant." 10. Sri Raja Ram Agrawal. Sri Raja Ram Agrawal. counsel appearing for the appellant contended that under the application under Section 18, the claimed amount was Rupees 60,09,860.20 P. over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the plaintiff was entitled to the fee being paid to him on the same. Counsel urged that simply because that the land had been reduced and on account of the same, the claim of compensation got reduced, could not be rightfully taken into account for determining the amount payable to the plaintiff. 11. For the above purpose, it is material to be pointed out that the fee has to be calculated on the amount in dispute. The amount in dispute has to be found out on the difference between the amount allowed by the Collector and the amount claimed. Fee is, therefore, payable on the amount which is in dispute. A thing is said to be in dispute when there is conflict between the parties in respect thereof. This requires an assertion of right, claim or demand on one side and contest on the other. If a claim made by the party is met by a contrary claim or that it is repelled, the parties would be considered to be at variance in respect of the same. In order, therefore, to attract the Proviso, the requirement was that there should have been a conflict between Raja Rajendra Prakash and the State of U.P. in respect of the amount which was being claimed in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case, the Maharaja had initially made a claim for the entire land and the award had also been given by the Land Acquisition Officer for the same. By the subsequent handing over of a part of the land, the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was reduced. Similarly, the claim of Maharaja Rajendra Prakash was also cut down. The dispute between the parties, therefore, remained with respect to the compensation payable on the reduced area of land. On account of reduction of the area, the Land Acquisition Officer modified the award and intimated the same to the Civil Court about the same. The subject of the dispute, as observed above, would be the matter upon which issue was joined and in relation to which evidence was examined. On account of reduction of the area, the Land Acquisition Officer modified the award and intimated the same to the Civil Court about the same. The subject of the dispute, as observed above, would be the matter upon which issue was joined and in relation to which evidence was examined. The plaintiff's claim, therefore, for the fee on the amount of Rs. 60,000,00/- is wholly unsustainable. 12. Part III of the Land Acquisition Act deals with reference to Court and procedure thereon. S. 18 of the Act entitles any person interested who has not accepted the award to file an application to the Collector for reference being made for the determination of compensation to the Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 requires the applicant to state the ground on which the award is to be taken. Section 19 prescribes for the particulars which have to be stated by the Collector for the information of the Court in writing under his hand. Amongst others, one of the things required to be stated is the amount of compensation awarded under Section 11. Upon the receipt of the reference, the Court is required under Section 20 to cause a notice to be served on the persons mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) of the said section. 13. From a reading of the above provisions, it would appear that the court is required to determine the compensation payable to the applicant on the reference made to the Collector. The reference is to state the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the instant case, by the date the application under Section 18 was made by the Maharaja before the Collector, the revised award had not been made. From Ex. XII, it would appear that by the time reference under Section 19 was made to the Civil Court, the revised award had come. In the revised statement Ex. XII, the area of land of Maharaja mentioned was as 111.969 acres and the number of trees and bushes on the land were mentioned as 612 and 1,71,111 respectively. This also gave the total amount of compensation found payable to Maharaja Rajendra Prakash as Rs. 17,82,300.55P. Thus, from these facts, it is clear that the reference was made in respect of 111.969 acres of land. This also gave the total amount of compensation found payable to Maharaja Rajendra Prakash as Rs. 17,82,300.55P. Thus, from these facts, it is clear that the reference was made in respect of 111.969 acres of land. It is in respect of the amount payable on this area of land that a contest had been put by the State of U.P. which was supported by the plaintiff. It may be correct that in the statement of particulars, the Collector mentioned the amount of compensation claimed as Rs. 99,24,412.50P. but it would not be correct to treat the said amount as compensation which could be said to be the subject matter of dispute in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It may be noted here that the admitted case of the parties was that the aforesaid amount of compensation had been claimed by Maharaja Rajendra Prakash in respect of his entire area 239.16 acres. The submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff has no substance. It is not correct to say that irrespective of the reduction of the area, the plaintiff was entitled to get his fee determined on Rs. 60,09,860.20 which was not in dispute. Maharaja Rajendra Prakash was not claiming that amount in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, it could not be the amount on which counsel's fee was required to be determined. Counsel's fee had to be determined on the difference between the amount allowed by the Collector and the amount claimed. The amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on the reduced area of land was Rs. 17,82,300.55 P. as against the claim of Maharaja Rajendra Prakash for Rs. 35,76,397.05 P. After reducing the amount awarded by the Collector the amount on which the fee was taxable under Rule 585 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957, was Rs. 17,94,096.50 P. 14. Counsel for the plaintiff next argued that since in the decree prepared in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the counsels fee mentioned was Rs. 23773.50 P. the plaintiff was entitled to the same. In making this argument, counsel stressed upon the fact of rejection of the application for the amendment of decree which was moved on behalf of the State. The submission made is untenable. 23773.50 P. the plaintiff was entitled to the same. In making this argument, counsel stressed upon the fact of rejection of the application for the amendment of decree which was moved on behalf of the State. The submission made is untenable. Fee payable to the plaintiff has to be decided in accordance with Rule 585 General Rules (Civil), 1957. It is this Rule which forms part of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. What was mentioned in the decree was of no consequence. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept that the decree mentioning the appellant's fee having remained intact and not varied by the Court even on an application made on behalf of respondent No. 2, the court below erred in not awarding the same. The plaintiff was, in fact, not called upon to contest the claim of the plaintiff for the amount initially claimed through the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He was, therefore, rightly held not entitled to get the same. 15. For what I have said above, I find that the trial court was right in decreeing the suit partly for the sum of Rs. 10425.50 P. 16. Since the cross-objection filed on behalf of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission for costs of the suit being paid to it, is unsustainable the same is also liable to be rejected. 17. In the result, the appeal and the cross-objection fail and are dismissed. Considering the circumstances of the present case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.